Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:54:55.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of a formulated excess of rumen degradable protein or undegradable protein on milk production in dairy cows in early lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. K. Sloan ,
P. Rowlinson  and
D. G. Armstrong
B. K. Sloan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture
P. Rowlinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Get access

Abstract

Following a 3-week covariance period, 30 group-housed dairy cows were individually given one of three diets from week 4 to week 13 of lactation to determine any possible advantage in milk yield and production of feeding levels of undegradable protein (+UDP) or rumen-degradable protein (+RDP) above the minimum levels (control) proposed by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC, 1984). The three concentrates given were formulated to be of equivalent metabolizable energy (ME, 13·5 MJ/kg dry matter (DM)) concentration and each consisted of rolled barley plus a protein supplement: control (crude protein (CP), 129 g/kg DM) 0·35 kg DM fish meal per day; +UDP (CP, 167 g7kg DM) 1·0 kg DM fish meal per day; and +RDP (CP, 167 g/kg DM) 1+5 kg DM soya per day. For each group the total ‘concentrate’ allowance per animal per day was 11·6 kg fresh weight and was given in three equal feeds. Grass silage (CP 122 g/kg DM, ME 106 MJ/kg DM) was given ad libitum. For the control, +UDP and +RDP treatments, respectively, mean grass silage intakes were 8·29, 8·62 and 8·65 kg/day and mean milk yields were 26·6, 26·3 and 26·1 kg/day. These were not significantly different (P > 0·05). Milk fat concentration was lower (P < 0·05) for the +UDP treatment (36·4 g/kg) in comparison with the control (38·6 g/kg) or the +RDP treatment (39·7 g/kg) but no other milk constituent was significantly influenced by treatment. There was a trend for a greater live-weight gain with treatment +UDP (0·81 kg/day) compared with the other two treatments (control 0·50, +RDP 0·51 kg/day) but there were no differences in condition-score change between treatments. In this trial there was no advantage to feeding formulated levels of UDP or RDP above those proposed by ARC (1984).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 13 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1986. Condition scoring of dairy cowv. P612. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Alnwick.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Supplement No. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. 1982. Dietary protein and the high-yielding dairy cow. 12th Hannah Lecture. Hannah Research Institute Report, pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. and Brookes, I. M. 1981. Protein requirements of ruminant livestock — the ARC proposals. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia (ed. Farrell, D. J.), pp. 24–39. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution. 1959. Determination of the solids-not-fat content of milk. BS 734, Part 2. British Standards Institution, London.Google Scholar
Clay, A. B., Buckley, B. A., Hasbullah, M. and Satter, L. D. 1978. Milk production response to either plant protein or NPN. Journal of Dairy Science 61: Suppt. I, p. 170.Google Scholar
Cressman, S. G., Grieve, D. G., MacLeod, G. K., Wheeler, E. E. and Young, L. G. 1980. Influence of dietary protein concentration on milk production by dairy cattle in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 63: 1839–1847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erfle, J. D., Mahadevan, S., Teather, R. M. and Sauer, F. D. 1983. The performance of lactating cows fed urea-treated corn silage in combination with soybean or fishmeal containing concentrates. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63: 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foldagkr, J. and Huber, J. T. 1979. Influence of protein percent and source on cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 62: 954–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folman, Y., Neumark, H., Kaim, M. and Kaufmann, W. 1981. Performance, rumen and blood metabolites in high-yielding cows fed varying protein percents and protected soybean. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 759–768.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1979. The effect of protein content of the supplement for dairy cows with access ad libitum to high digestibility, wilted grass silage. Animal Production 28: 183–189.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1981. Feed input-milk output relationships in the spring-calving dairy cow. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1980 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 15–31. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. and McMurray, C. H. 1979. The optimum level of protein in the supplement for dairy cows with access to grass silage. Animal Production 29: 283–291.Google Scholar
Grainger, C., Wilhelms, G. D. and McGowan, A. A. 1982. Effect of body condition at calving and level of feeding in early lactation on milk production of dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 22: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha, J. K. and Kennelly, J. J. 1984. Effects of fishmeal and formaldehyde or blood treatment of canola meal on digestion and milk production. Agriculture and Forestry Bulletin Special Issue, pp. 56–77.Google Scholar
Land, C. and Leaver, J. D. 1981. The effect of body condition at calving on the production of Friesian cows and heifers. Animal Production 32: 362–363.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. 1985. The basis for the proposed Nordic Protein Evaluation System for Ruminants. The AATPBV System. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Suppl. 25, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
Majdoub, A., Lane, G. T. and Aitchison, T. E. 1978. Milk production response to nitrogen solubility in dairy rations. Journal of Dairy Science 61: 59–65.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L., Galwey, N. W., Newman, G. and Pike, I. H. 1982. Report of co-ordinated trials carried out on commercial farms in the UK. In Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs for Ruminants (ed. Miller, E. L., Pike, I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van), pp. 131–141. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, N. H., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D. H. 1975. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Napper, D. J., Smith, T. and Fulford, R. J. 1985. Performance of dairy cows offered isonitrogenous diets containing urea or fishmeal in early and mid-lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 337–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. and McDonald, I. 1981. The effects of protein degradability and food intake on milk yield and composition in cows in early lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabst, K. von, Schulte-coerne, H., Hackstedt, C. and Langner, R. 1986. Feeding experiments with soya and fishmeal to dairy cows. Milchwissenschaft 41: 23–26.Google Scholar
Parker, R. E. 1979. Introductory Statistics for Biology. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F., Smith, T. and Fulford, R. J. 1981. Protein studies on maize silage as a basal ration for dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poos, M. I., Bull, L. S. and Hemken, R. W. 1979. Supplementation of diets with positive and negative urea fermentation potential using urea or soybean meal. Journal of Animal Science 49: 1417–1426.Google Scholar
Roffler, R. E. and Satter, L. D. 1975. Relationship between ruminal ammonia and nonprotein nitrogen utilization by ruminants. II Application of published evidence to the development of a theoretical model for predicting nonprotein nitrogen utilization. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 1889–1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roffler, R. E., Satter, L. D., Hardie, A. R. and Tyler, W. J. 1978. Influence of dietary protein concentration on milk production by dairy cattle during early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 61: 1422–1428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, J. A., Alvarez, P. and Armstrong, D. G. 1986. The digestion by cattle of barley and silage diets containing increasing quantities of soya-bean meal. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Simmons, I. P. and Kitcherside, M. A. 1982. Forage protein and the performance and health of the dairy cow. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed. Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 6, pp. 89–95.Google Scholar